I am just wondering before you read this article by Paul Resniokff, do you think you have 1,000 true fans?
The Long Tail sparked a rush of investment and euphoria, only to crash into reality a few years later. In 2010, is the theory of “1,000 True Fans” a similar fantasy?
Like the Long Tail, the idea seems quite elegant on paper, but seems to encounter problems in the real world. In fact, the theory itself is partly predicated on the Long Tail and was hatched in 2008 by another Wired journalist, Kevin Kelly. For those unfamiliar, the theory holds that an artist can live comfortably by developing and nurturing a core fanbase of 1,000, each of whom contributes $100 annually. The resulting annual salary of $100,000 is enough for most to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle without the need for a day job.
Part of the allure of the theory is that it appears totally practical and achievable, and offers a direct-to-fan antidote to big, mainstream strategies. Instead of reaching for Gaga-level fame and riches – and the devilish contracts that come with it – this post-opulence theory offers the magic of middle class success with fewer strings attached.
But years later, what’s the verdict? Is there real data to support the idea that this emerging class is growing, or even exists in substantial numbers? Digital Music News occasionally hears from artists who claim to make more than $100,000 annually. But most seem to be struggling to quit their day jobs, and are honest enough to admit it. And some are quite open about their struggles.
And, many of these artists have lots of fans – tens of thousands or more – but have difficulty converting high-paying devotees. That raises the question of whether superfans are really super-spenders. ”Ask yourself: Who among all the artists you enjoy or admire have you spent more than $100 on in the last year?” well-accomplished author John Scalzi posed as part of a larger critical deconstruction of the theory. Scalzi had actually sold more than 100,000 books by 2007, and accrued 40,000 followers online. But even at this mid-level of fame, Scalzi found that attracting and maintaining a heavy-spending group of followers proved difficult. ”Lots and lots of people will spend $20 a year to be someone’s fan,” Scalzi continued. ”A much smaller number will spend $100.”
Too pessimistic? Direct-to-fan artists like Amanda Palmer and Jill Sobule offer serious counterexamples, among others. On stage at the New Music Seminar recently in New York, publicist and DIY expert Ariel Hyatt also pointed to the successful efforts of Ellis Paul, an artist that reported annual profits of more than $100,000 on a superfan base of 2,500. That core took about ten years to develop, according to the artist.
Impressive story, though the question is whether this represents a model that is scalable to the broader direct-to-fan (and DIY) community. Hyatt appears almost religious on the matter. ”I refuse to listen to the naysayers who are refuting 1,000 True Fans and I am going to focus on featuring as many artists as I can who are proving the model,” Hyatt declared in 2009.
But separating the impact of marketing teams and label resources is difficult. Both Paul and Palmer have had significant label support in the past, and Hyatt herself hoisted Trent Reznor and Radiohead as prime validations of the theory. ”Trent Reznor and Radiohead proved 1,000 True Fans practically overnight and they will always remain as the two cornerstones of artists who did it quickly and efficiently for obvious reasons that don’t need to be rehashed here,” Hyatt continued. Of course, these two artists were created by massive, major label machines in the 90s.
Perhaps a lot more data – and time – are required to truly allow the theory to breathe. But anecdotally, only a slim number of artists appear to be surviving the DIY war, suggesting that some alternative theories may be worth considering.
